Operations took away the crazy explosive spam and campers that just sat staring at the mcom stations waiting for people to try and arm them. I preferred that the capture points were bigger and we're no longer focused on a 1sq meter patch of ground where the mcom is.

I found rush became a matter of someone having to run in like a nutter to arm the station, most of the time dying repeatedly whilst under fire from snipers, grenades, rockets, c4, tripmines etc etc. A lot of the time it was decided by throwing smoke and arming it in the confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I cut my battlefield teeth on rush but to me operations is just an improved version of that game mode.

If rush comes back it has to be the old school Bad Company style MCOMM's with MCOMM bashing with 2.0 destruction of caving a building in on it. Them were good times on BC2. Then people cried then DICE moved most MCOMM's outside. lol

I'm a little confused as to why it's a problem to have a "temporary game mode." It brings players back and stops staleness from repetitive game modes. The more permanent game modes they have, the more divided the playerbase is. I'm even more confused as to how that announcement that it was temporary was missed. They plastered it everywhere.

I'm a little confused as to why it's a problem to have a "temporary game mode." It brings players back and stops staleness from repetitive game modes. The more permanent game modes they have, the more divided the playerbase is. I'm even more confused as to how that announcement that it was temporary was missed. They plastered it everywhere.

Having another way to play the same maps isn't dividing the player base because all the players have access to this mode. Now if you had dlc which not everyone buys, now your splitting the community. With each dlc create's more servers with spicific dlc which not everyone buys. When everyone has access to the same content, that is not splitting the player base

I'm a little confused as to why it's a problem to have a "temporary game mode." It brings players back and stops staleness from repetitive game modes. The more permanent game modes they have, the more divided the playerbase is. I'm even more confused as to how that announcement that it was temporary was missed. They plastered it everywhere.

Having another way to play the same maps isn't dividing the player base because all the players have access to this mode. Now if you had dlc which not everyone buys, now your splitting the community. With each dlc create's more servers with spicific dlc which not everyone buys. When everyone has access to the same content, that is not splitting the player base

The problem is, if 25% of the 25% of the players that enjoy frontlines turn to RUSH, that's still 25% less players playing Frontlines. That's splitting the playerbase, but not in the traditional "behind a paywall" sense.

I'm a little confused as to why it's a problem to have a "temporary game mode." It brings players back and stops staleness from repetitive game modes. The more permanent game modes they have, the more divided the playerbase is. I'm even more confused as to how that announcement that it was temporary was missed. They plastered it everywhere.

Having another way to play the same maps isn't dividing the player base because all the players have access to this mode. Now if you had dlc which not everyone buys, now your splitting the community. With each dlc create's more servers with spicific dlc which not everyone buys. When everyone has access to the same content, that is not splitting the player base

The problem is, if 25% of the 25% of the players that enjoy frontlines turn to RUSH, that's still 25% less players playing Frontlines. That's splitting the playerbase, but not in the traditional "behind a paywall" sense.

If the player base is so small that it can't handle the option of including a classic mode like Rush, then it's already over.

I'm a little confused as to why it's a problem to have a "temporary game mode." It brings players back and stops staleness from repetitive game modes. The more permanent game modes they have, the more divided the playerbase is. I'm even more confused as to how that announcement that it was temporary was missed. They plastered it everywhere.

Having another way to play the same maps isn't dividing the player base because all the players have access to this mode. Now if you had dlc which not everyone buys, now your splitting the community. With each dlc create's more servers with spicific dlc which not everyone buys. When everyone has access to the same content, that is not splitting the player base

The problem is, if 25% of the 25% of the players that enjoy frontlines turn to RUSH, that's still 25% less players playing Frontlines. That's splitting the playerbase, but not in the traditional "behind a paywall" sense.

If the player base is so small that it can't handle the option of including a classic mode like Rush, then it's already over.

Isn't breakthrough basically Rush? You move through a set of point and then push to the next, that's Rush in a nutshell. What is your specific issue with Breakthrough?

Breakthrough has too many players. Rush has less players and works a lot better with the squad mechanics of BFV. Squad conquest also works just as good with the squad style team play. Breakthrough feels chaotic and less organized.